DOCSLIB.ORG

Energized Public Spaces Design Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energized Public Spaces Design Guidelines Attachment A Designing Public Spaces Energized Public Spaces Design Guidelines Working Draft December 2018 THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION Abstract The Designing Public Spaces: Energized Public Spaces Design Guidelines should be used in conjunction with Sector Plan Design Guidelines. This document will be used to guide the design of public spaces within the Energized Public Spaces Functional Master Plan (EPS Plan) Study Area as outlined in more detail in these guidelines. The guidelines are based on existing conditions analysis, stakeholder input and current best practices in public space design from the region and beyond. Design guidelines help provide information about how plan recommendations and zoning code requirements can be met, and the overall context for the different types of spaces within an integrated system of public spaces in the County. Design guidelines are approved by the Montgomery County Planning Board for use by public entities and developers in preparing design proposals, and planners and the Board in reviewing them. These guidelines may need to be reviewed and updated by the Planning Board as best practices and conditions in the EPS Plan Study Area evolve overtime. Sources of Copies Montgomery County Department of Parks The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 9500 Brunett Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20901 Online at www.montgomeryparks.org ii DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACES - ENERGIZED PUBLIC SPACES DESIGN GUIDELINES • WORKING DRAFT • DECEMBER 2018 This page has been intentionally left blank. Designing Public Spaces Energized Public Spaces Design Guidelines Working Draft December 2018 THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACES - ENERGIZED PUBLIC SPACES DESIGN GUIDELINES • WORKING DRAFT • DECEMBER 2018 iii Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Vision and Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Goals............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 1.3 Integrated Public Process .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 1.4 Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 2 AREAWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES ...............................................................................................13 2.1 Design Principles ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Design Guidelines ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Checklist ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 3 URBAN PARK TYPES ...............................................................................................................37 3.1 Urban Park Types ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 3.1.1 Civic Green ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 3.1.2 Plaza .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 3.1.3 Urban Recreational Park ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 3.1.4 Urban Greenway ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 3.1.5 Neighborhood Green .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 3.1.6 Urban Recreational Parklet ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 3.1.7 Pocket Green .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 3.1.8 Temporary/Interim Park .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................41 iv DESIGNING PUBLIC SPACES - ENERGIZED PUBLIC SPACES DESIGN GUIDELINES • WORKING DRAFT • DECEMBER 2018 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................A1 App.1 Case Studies by Park Types ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A2 App.2 Public Spaces System and Hierarchy .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A3 App 2.1 System ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................A3 App.2.2 Park Types Hierarchy ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................A4 App.2.3 Public Space Site Selection ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................A5 List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1.1 - Energized Public Spaces Design Framework ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 1.2 - Energized Public Spaces Plan Study Area and Pilot Area Map .........................................................................................................................................................................................4 Figure App.1 - Park Hierarchy Example - Lyttonsville Sector Plan .....................................................................................................................................................................................................A4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recreation Guidelines Public Hearing Draft
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD RECREATION GUIDELINES PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2016 Prepared by the Montgomery County Planning Department www.MontgomeryPlanning.org Table of Contents Chapter 1: 4.1.5 Step 4, Continued: Revising Supply Selections - Us- Overview of the 2016 Recreation Guidelines �������� 2 ing Recreation Elements ������������������������������������������������������21 4.1.6 Exporting the Recreation Adequacy Report ������������22 1�1 Introduction ������������������������������������������������������������������2 1�2 Purpose of the Update ������������������������������������������������3 Chapter 5: Flexibility: Custom Recreation Facilities ��������������� 24 1�3 Overall Recreation Guidelines Goals ��������������������������3 5�1 Custom Facility Tool ��������������������������������������������������24 1�4 Use of the Recreation Guidelines ��������������������������������3 5.1.1 Custom Facilities Evaluation Method �����������������������24 1�5 The 1992 Recreation Guidelines Method �������������������4 5.1.3 Planning Board Findings ��������������������������������������������25 1�6 The Web Tool ��������������������������������������������������������������5 5�2 Custom Facilities Evaluation ��������������������������������������26 Chapter 2: Chapter 6: Recreation Demand Overview ������������������������������� 6 Off-Site Recreation������������������������������������������������� 27 2�1 Approach to Establishing Demand � ���������������������������6 6�1 Using Existing Off-Site Public Recreation Facilities 2.1.1 Recreation
    [Show full text]
  • Leseprobe 9783791384900.Pdf
    NYC Walks — Guide to New Architecture JOHN HILL PHOTOGRAPHY BY PAVEL BENDOV Prestel Munich — London — New York BRONX 7 Columbia University and Barnard College 6 Columbus Circle QUEENS to Lincoln Center 5 57th Street, 10 River to River East River MANHATTAN by Ferry 3 High Line and Its Environs 4 Bowery Changing 2 West Side Living 8 Brooklyn 9 1 Bridge Park Car-free G Train Tour Lower Manhattan of Brooklyn BROOKLYN Contents 16 Introduction 21 1. Car-free Lower Manhattan 49 2. West Side Living 69 3. High Line and Its Environs 91 4. Bowery Changing 109 5. 57th Street, River to River QUEENS 125 6. Columbus Circle to Lincoln Center 143 7. Columbia University and Barnard College 161 8. Brooklyn Bridge Park 177 9. G Train Tour of Brooklyn 195 10. East River by Ferry 211 20 More Places to See 217 Acknowledgments BROOKLYN 2 West Side Living 2.75 MILES / 4.4 KM This tour starts at the southwest corner of Leonard and Church Streets in Tribeca and ends in the West Village overlooking a remnant of the elevated railway that was transformed into the High Line. Early last century, industrial piers stretched up the Hudson River from the Battery to the Upper West Side. Most respectable New Yorkers shied away from the working waterfront and therefore lived toward the middle of the island. But in today’s postindustrial Manhattan, the West Side is a highly desirable—and expensive— place, home to residential developments catering to the well-to-do who want to live close to the waterfront and its now recreational piers.
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper: #Backyardexperiment © SFA 2017 Street Furniture Australia 1300 027 799 Streetfurniture.Com 2 1.0 Introduction
    WHITE PAPER #BackyardExperiment a pop-up park and social study in garema place, canberra #BackyardExperiment was a collaboration between Street Furniture Australia and the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, in partnership with ACT Government and In the City Canberra. This paper was released by Street Furniture Australia on 6 February 2017. contents 1.0 introduction 3 2.0 project rationale 5 3.0 objectives 6 4.0 key challenges 7 4.1 a thoroughfare 7 4.2 not family friendly 8 4.3 low population density 9 5.0 key tools 10 5.1 movable seats 11 5.2 art and colour 12 5.3 lighting 13 5.4 lawn 14 5.5 digital 15 5.6 community collaboration 16 6.0 results 17 6.1 time-lapse results 17 6.2 missing seat tally 25 6.3 social media responses 26 6.4 empathy interviews 30 6.5 ACT Government survey 32 7.0 conclusion 33 7.1 key learnings 33 7.2 recommendations 34 acknowledgements 35 references 36 time-lapse data 37 White Paper: #BackyardExperiment © SFA 2017 Street Furniture Australia 1300 027 799 streetfurniture.com 2 1.0 introduction How do you attract people to public space? #BackyardExperiment seeks to answer this A bright pop-up park, designed by landscape question. architecture firm Context, was built to attract people and make the area more family-friendly, on The pop-up park and social experiment ran for 8 a limited budget. days at Garema Place, in the heart of Canberra, Australia’s capital city. Three time-lapse cameras were installed to observe and compare data on how people Garema Place is a largely concrete, underused interacted with Garema Place before and during open area surrounded by cafès, shops and the experiment.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Open Space Plan Urban Open Space Plan
    “It is the great spaces between the great buildings that make a great city.” - Winston Churchill URBAN OPEN SPACE PLAN URBAN OPEN SPACE PLAN www.tempe.gov/comdev/urbanopenspace.htm REPORT PREPARED BY: with PROS Consulting 201 S. Capitol Ave, Suite 505 Indianapolis, IN 46225 Drake & Associates 8003 East Del Tornasol Scottsdale, AZ 85258 REPORT PREPARED FOR: The City of Tempe, Community Development Department December 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND PLANNING INPUT 13 3. OVERALL VISION AND PROGRAM PLAN 17 4. NEIGHBORHOOD PLACES 87 5. GETTING AROUND: ARTERIALS, TRANSIT & CONNECTING PLACES 97 6. IDEA BOOK ON KEY ELEMENTS 109 7. SUSTAINABILITY: A KEY PART OF THE VISION 119 8. DIRECTING THE DREAM: MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, RESOURCE 127 REQUIREMENTS, REVENUE OPTIONS AND STRATEGIES 9. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 131 10. CONCLUSION 135 4 TEMPE URBAN OPEN SPACE PLAN FINAL REPORT 5 INTRODUCTION PROJECT GOALS The desirability of a city goes beyond its job foresight when they decided to initiate an Urban offerings, retail centers, housing stock, or even Open Space Plan in the fall of 2006 to nurture its cultural and recreation offerings. A city is also and build on that unique downtown experience. judged by its sense of place, social atmosphere, and This document is the result of that decision, and of certain quality of life elements that are often hard more than a year’s effort, working with downtown to define or plan for. People want to live or work in residents and other stakeholders to explore how the a place that is pleasant, stimulating, attractive and city could develop a great public space environment safe.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a View from the 2,9 Prize Blidges of 1971
    1 A View from the Bleachers page 9 2,9 Prize Blidges of 1971 page 12 MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION • Published by VOLUME XI I NUMBER 3 I THIRD QUARTER 1971 American Institute of Steel Construction 101 P.,k Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017 CONTENTS A View from the Bleachers 3 A Rustic Bridge with a Weathered Finish 10 Edwin H. Webster, President Prize Bridges of 1971 12 Gilbert M. Dorland, First Vice President Van W. Coddington, Second Vice President William R. Jackson, Treasurer John K. Edmonds, THE T. R. HIGGINS LECTURESHIP AWARD Executive Vice President leslie H. Gillette, In 1972, the American Institute of Steel Construction will Assistant Executive Vice President conduct the second annual T. R. Higgins Lectureship A ward. William W. lanigan, Secretary and General Counsel The Awa"d honOl'S former AISC Director of Engineering and Research Theodore R. Higgins for his substantial cont,ibu­ tions to the advancement of the structural steel industry through innovative engineering, technical papers, and pro­ • DITO"IAL 8TA~" fessiOltal lectures . Daniel Farb, Director of Publications The Award J'Ccognizes the author of the technical paper that Mary Anne Donohue, Editor is judged to be the 1nost significant contJ'ibution to ellgineerillg literature on fabricated stmctural steel published within the period from July 1, 1969 to July 1, 1971. The Award consists of an engraved certificate and a $2,000 honorarium. If the RaalONAL O ...... IC •• paper selected has more than one author, the principal author Atlanta, Georgia listed will receive the Award, but the other authors will also Birmingham, Alabama be hOllOred.
    [Show full text]
  • Now 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE
    Landmarks Preservation Commission December 6, 2016, Designation List 491 LP-2582 CITICORP CENTER (now 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE) including SAINT PETER’S CHURCH 601 Lexington Avenue (aka 601-635 Lexington Avenue, 139-153 East 53rd Street, 140-160 East 54th Street, 884-892 Third Avenue), Manhattan Built, 1973-78; architects, Hugh A. Stubbins & Associates and Emery Roth & Sons Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1308, Lot 7501 (1001, 1002, 1005) On September 13, 2016, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of Citicorp Center (now 601 Lexington Avenue), including Saint Peter’s Church, and the proposed designation of the related landmark site. The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with provisions of law. Four people spoke in support of designation, including representatives of Saint Peter’s Church, Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, and the Municipal Art Society of New York. The principal owner, Boston Properties, and the Real Estate Board of New York submitted written testimony in support of designation. Summary The former Citicorp Center is a major example of late 20th century modern architecture. Designed by Hugh A. Stubbins & Associates, in association with Emery Roth & Sons, this early mixed-use complex contains three interlocking buildings: a 59-story office tower, a 6-story retail-and-office structure, and Saint Peter’s Church. Commissioned by First National City Bank (now Citibank), the 915-foot-tall office tower is one of New York City’s most recognizable skyscrapers. Important for its slanted top, four “super” columns that rise over 100 feet and generous public spaces, it plays a major role on the Manhattan skyline.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Shadows
    Chapter 5: Shadows A. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the detailed shadow study that was conducted to determine whether the proposed One Vanderbilt development would cast any new shadows on sunlight-sensitive resources. Sunlight-sensitive resources can include parks, playgrounds, residential or office plazas, and other publicly accessible open spaces; sunlight-dependent features of historic resources; and important natural features such as water bodies. Since the preparation of the shadow analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the height of the proposed One Vanderbilt development was increased. The shadow analysis in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been revised to reflect this change including Figures 5-1 to 5-22 and 5-27. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS This analysis compared shadows that would be cast by the proposed One Vanderbilt development, which would be built to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 30, with those that would be cast by the 15 FAR building that would be developed absent the proposed actions (the 15 FAR No-Action building). As described below, the analysis concluded that the proposed 30 FAR One Vanderbilt development would cast new shadows on Bryant Park, the west windows of Grand Central Terminal’s main concourse and several other sunlight-sensitive resources. However, the new shadows would be limited in extent, duration and effects and would not result in any significant adverse shadow impacts, as demonstrated in detail below. B. DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY This analysis has been prepared in accordance with CEQR procedures and follows the guidelines of the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. DEFINITIONS Incremental shadow is the additional, or new, shadow that a structure resulting from a project would cast on a sunlight-sensitive resource.
    [Show full text]
  • “The 1961 New York City Zoning Resolution, Privately Owned Public
    “The 1961 New York City Zoning Resolution, Privately Owned Public Space and the Question of Spatial Quality - The Pedestrian Through-Block Connections Forming the Sixth-and-a-Half Avenue as Examples of the Concept” University of Helsinki Faculty of Arts Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies Art History Master’s thesis Essi Rautiola April 2016 Tiedekunta/Osasto Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty Laitos/Institution– Department Humanistinen tiedekunta Filosofian, historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos Tekijä/Författare – Author Essi Rautiola Työn nimi / Arbetets titel – Title The 1961 New York City Zoning Resolution, Privately Owned Public Space and the Question of Spatial Quality - The Pedestrian Through-Block Connections Forming the Sixth-and-a-Half Avenue as Examples of the Concept Oppiaine /Läroämne – Subject Taidehistoria Työn laji/Arbetets art – Level Aika/Datum – Month and year Sivumäärä/ Sidoantal – Number of pages Pro gradu Huhtikuu 2016 104 + 9 Tiivistelmä/Referat – Abstract Tutkielma käsittelee New Yorkin kaupungin kaavoituslainsäädännön kerrosneliöbonusjärjestelmää sekä sen synnyttämiä yksityisomisteisia julkisia tiloja ja niiden tilallista laatua nykyisten ihanteiden valossa. Esimerkkitiloina käytetään Manhattanin keskikaupungille kuuden korttelin alueelle sijoittuvaa kymmenen sisä- ja ulkotilan sarjaa. Kerrosneliöbonusjärjestelmä on ollut osa kaupungin kaavoituslainsäädäntöä vuodesta 1961 alkaen ja liittyy olennaisesti New Yorkin kaupungin korkean rakentamisen perinteisiin. Se on mahdollistanut ylimääräisten
    [Show full text]
  • New York: the Revitalization of Public Space
    New York: the revitalization of public space Recent interventions in the Manhattan grid EURAU’12 ABSTRACT. During the past 200 years, New York´s grid has been a format for new approaches to “making city”. This past decade has been profitable for New York´s public space. Recent events such as 9/11 and the new Bloomberg administration’s commitment to sustainable growth have provided a driving force behind the revitalization of urban life in the city. This revitalization could not have been possible without the existing elements that foster public space: the grid, public legislation and the citizen. The citizen plays a role as user, critic and promoter of the public space in the city he lives, works and plays in. In some cases, it is not so evident for whom the public space is created. This can be seen through three different types of users in the city and the creation of public space for each of them: the neighbor, the citizen and the visitor. According to Jane Jacobs, “The cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” (JACOBS, 1961. 238) KEYWORDS: New York, Manhattan, revitalization, public space, grid, superblock Ana Morcillo Pallarés Morcillo + Pallarés Arquitectos Paseo, nº 69 – bajo 30530 Cieza (Murcia) Spain, [email protected] 00 34 968 761 764 1. New York. The revitalization of the public space In 2011, the New York grid turned 200 hundred years old and NYC celebrated its new public spaces that grew from its influence. 2011 saw the realization of interventions in Hypar Pavilion at Lincoln Center; New York´s first Urban Design Week in the BMW Guggenheim Labs pavilion and throughout the city, the opening of the second section of the High Line and the long awaited inauguration of the WTC Memorial.
    [Show full text]
  • Revitalizing the Southeast Corner of Ocean and Pine: Activating Victory Park
    Revitalizing the Southeast Corner of Ocean and Pine: Activating Victory Park Prepared for the Downtown Long Beach Associates By April Economides, Green Octopus Consulting May 2015 ABOUT THIS PAPER This paper aims to offer inspiring and practical ideas of ‘what could be.’ It explains the benefits Long Beach will enjoy by restoring and activating Victory Park; it describes what ensures successful pocket parks, as well as what to avoid; it looks at successful pocket parks in other cities, including best practices in park management and activation; and it puts forth recommendations about how to move forward. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO LONG BEACH? The intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Pine Avenue is one of the most important intersections in Long Beach. It serves as a main thoroughfare for pedestrians, including many conventioneers and tourists, and has a high volume of vehicular traffic. Located next to the Convention Center, it links the attractions, hotels and restaurants of South and North Pine Avenue and is one of the main intersections used by Downtown visitors. The intersection is also heavily used by nearby residents, Downtown workers, business visitors and transit commuters. Prospective developers and business owners looking to relocate or open anew in Downtown regularly pass through this intersection, as do many of the Convention Center’s current and prospective clients. Two thriving businesses – the Renaissance Hotel and Rock Bottom Brewery – grace the north corners, and exciting plans are in the works for the Ocean Center Building located on the southwest corner. In contrast to this activity, the approximately 11,000-square-foot property on the southeast corner is vacant, surrounded by a fence.
    [Show full text]
  • Denver Broncos Pin Their Future on Steel
    metal-panel cladding around the rim of the upper deck. The facade of the Denver Broncos building is wrapped in a sinuous lat- ticework of aluminum, glass and metal panel curtain wall. The new stadium is also unique in Pin Their that the seating treads and risers con- sist of 3/16” thick bent steel plate. Two factors led the designers to choose bent steel plates in lieu of the Future on Steel usual L-shaped precast concrete sec- tions. First, the entire east sideline of the existing Mile High Stadium uses By Dennis R. Tow, P.E., steel treads and risers in order to Michael S. Fletcher, P.E., S.E., save weight in the world’s largest and Lanson B. Nichols movable-seating structure. The east- ern section (all three tiers of seating) can retract 145’ to make room for a left field during baseball season. Secondly, in the geometrical layout of the new stadium each column grid line skews relative to the adjacent column grid lines. In most modern stadiums, the sideline and end zone seating sections are linear, with either a 90-degree segmented curve through the corner, or a linear cor- ner turned on a 45-degree chamfer. HNTB and Walter P. Moore defined the grid system of the new stadium as a doubly symmetric 48-sided polygon based on broad-radius arcs at the sidelines and end zones with tighter arcs through the corners. The con- tinually curving seating rows created by this grid system provide better sightlines and field proximity for sta- dium patrons and generate the appearance of a smoothly curved seating bowl.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture Mark Francis
    A Case Study Method For Landscape Architecture Mark Francis Mark Francis, FASLA is professor and Abstract: Case studies are widely used in most professions, including medicine, law, past chair of landscape architecture engineering, business, planning, and architecture. This practice is becoming increasingly com- at the University of California, Davis. mon in landscape architecture as well. The primary body of knowledge in landscape architec- Trained in landscape architecture and ture is contained in the written and visual documentation—that is, stories—of projects, be it urban design at the University of Cal- well-known ones such as New York’s Central Park, or more modest projects such as a small ifornia, Berkeley and Harvard, his neighborhood park. Together, these cases provide the primary form of education, innovation, and work focuses on the use and meaning testing for the profession. They also serve as the collective record of the advancement and devel- of the built and natural landscape. opment of new knowledge in landscape architecture. This article summarizes a research project Much of this research has utilized a commissioned by the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) in 1997 to develop a case case study approach to study and study method for landscape architecture. The project concludes that the case study method is a design parks, gardens, public spaces, highly appropriate and valuable approach in landscape architecture. This article presents a streets, nearby nature, and urban case study methodology for landscape architecture including it limits and benefits, a suggested public life. He is the author of sev- methodology and format, and an example case study of Bryant Park in New York City.
    [Show full text]